Tag: 101-03

One of the most renowned ideas from Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ is the question of is it better for a prince to be feared or loved, and the answer is both but, if you cannot be both then it is better to be feared because your subjects are kept submissive in fear that they will be punished. However, there are many other great ideas that most people tend to overlook because of that most famous one. One example is the idea of being born in the right time and the right place. Machiavelli explains that in “examining their life and deeds it will be seen that they owed nothing to fortune but the opportunity which gave them matter to be shaped into what form they saw fit; and without that opportunity their powers would have been wasted, and without their powers the opportunity would have come in vain” (pg. 104).

In previous classes, we have discussed whether a leader is born or made and in Machiavelli’s case he claims that they are made through the circumstances in their lives. He uses the example of Romulus and that he needed to be exiled from Alba and all the other succeeding events to happen in order to eventually become the king of Rome. In class, we used the example of MLK being born at the right time. If MLK wasn’t born during segregation and exposed to discrimination, who know if he would have become as big of a historical figure as he is now, especially since he was such a reluctant leader in the first place. I believe that leaders can be both born and made, yet there has to be a combination of the two. There are some qualities that people are born with that help them become leaders, like charisma and extroversion. However, some skills people can be taught and can work on them during their life, like public speaking skills and communication.

I believe Gardner summed up both of the articles when he stated that leaders are almost never as in charge as they are pictured. He really grasps the idea that the separateness of the traditional leader, allowing for followers to have their own ideas and opinions, and the continuing development of citizen leaders, everyday people who use action and knowledge to contribute to the common good in different areas, gives way to the fact that a following must be earned and that most leaders aren’t as popular as they seem. I also agree with the second half of Gardner’s point when he writes that followers are almost never as submissive as they seem, because many people who listen to leaders and agree with their vision or mission probably don’t agree with all of their opinions and speeches, leading to a group who uses their voices to communicate their own ideals and values.

The Great Man Theory is the belief that history is made and structured by the influence of great men who possess a variety of traits, like intelligence and political and military superiority, which makes them natural leaders. Typically, this consists of mostly white, middle to upper class men. This leaves hardly any room for the stories of women and people of color to be told. However, it makes sense why this happened when looking at the context of what century it was in. Women were mostly meant to stay at home and raise the children while men were seen as the breadwinners. The history of people of color were not that well known because of how people viewed them in the past; they were seen as being “savages” and “unintelligent”. Therefore, with less primary sources and information it is harder to have accurate knowledge on the person.

I liked how she pointed out that there is not one objective way of telling the past and everyone has a different idea of which stories should be told. However, since there is only a select group of people choosing what gets put in the history books lots of stories end up getting left out. To different people, different stories mean more to them based on their culture and how they were raised. This concept of the Great Man Theory emerged in the 19^thcentury which is not that long ago. Since then we have made more changes and have more people investigating into the histories of those who were forgotten or excluded. For example, historians are becoming more involved in looking at women’s history by attempting to show that they were doing important work at the time, they were just overlooked. I thought that it was interesting that she pointed out how people keep telling her to not forget about Marie Curie or Caroline Herschel, when these women already have had their stories told and she’s interested in bringing new stories to light.

Given all the facts and information of Charles I and his execution, I agree with the ultimate decision to behead him. Despite the author’s claims on the anti-execution portion of “Did King Charles I deserve to be executed?” that his death was not inevitable, I believe that it was going to happen regardless due to his tyrannical and charismatic characteristics and tendencies. In “Trial and Execution of Charles I”, the author details Charles’ backdoor deals with the Scottish and how his belief that he ascended to the throne through divine right ultimately led to his downfall. His decision to attempt on following through on a plan that involved having a Scottish faction invade his own country in order to restore himself to the throne, with blatant disregard for his people and their lives, portrays a tyrannical man whose own best interests were at heart and not those of his citizens. This plan, known as the “Engagement”, nearly ruined the nation’s post-war peace that had come after four years of war.

However, I believe that after receiving his punishment of execution, he lost his tyrannical aspects and was determined on having his people see him in an alternate light. I believe that part of the legacy that he left behind, that of being a martyr and having an unexpected death, is tainted due to his ability to eloquently write to his people and son after his trial. Ultimately, in the end, I believe his death was well deserved due to his tyranny and toxic charisma that led to his downfall.

“Crooked Politics: Shakespeare’s Richard III and Leadership in 21st Century America” by Dr. Bezio is a great way to compare two leaders, Richard III and Trump, from different centuries and show that politics have not changed as much as we thought they have. Although we now have a multitude of technology, from smartphones to smart cars, we are still very much human and can be fooled by the image politicians show us. “Toxic leaders are attractive precisely because they promise those things that followers feel (or fear) are under threat…” (Bezio 5). This is one of the tactics used by Trump in order to gain the alt-right wing Republican votes. With the strong xenophobia surrounding our country, especially after the 9/11 attack and all of the mass shootings occurring, it was easy to tap into that fear of terrorism and use that to his advantage by creating slogans like “Build the wall”.

Both Trump and Richard understand that they need to persuade their audience into believing that they are the most reasonable choice for office/throne and are willing to use manipulation in order to get what they want. In an interview before the 2016 elections, Trump stated that “if [he] were to run, [he’d] run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country… [he] could lie and they’d still eat it up”. Trump is very much aware of the ideals of the party he represents thus, is able to manipulate them and use them for his personal gain. Our democracy is an imperfect process and is unable to reflect the true popular vote of our country. According to a couple articles, in 2016 voter turnout was around 60%, which is a little over a half. There are many factors contributing to this like unreasonably long poll lines, with the polls only being open during working hours. Many people are not able to take a break/off day from work to be able to wait in those long lines in order to vote, eliminating a big percent of the population. Until reading this article I was never aware as to how many similarities Trump and Richard shared with one another and it is interesting and a bit scary to think that history could be repeating itself.

To me, tyrannicide on the assassinator’s part is not a beneficial or, for lack of a better word, good action. As Americans and firm believers in democracy, tyrannicide and the “liberating” of another country excites us and makes us feel important and like leaders or creators of freedom. That being said, us as Americans also have the tendency to not necessarily ignore, but push to the side, the customs and ideals of other countries in pursuit of our values and implementing them in other places. I think that in order to fully allow tyrannicide to be committed, one has to fully understand the tyrant’s country and if the results of the tyrannicide would be truly advantageous for that country. Dr Andrade touches on this in his article when he talks about “hardcore utilitarians” and their morals and beliefs. One example of tyrannicide maybe not being advantageous is the post 9/11 wars in the Middle East that have been going on for over a decade, mostly in the name of tyrannicide in order to take out ISIS or ISIL. So many people have died in this “endless war” and in the end, it may not be all that beneficial for the Middle East due to the number of casualties. Obviously it will be beneficial for the ending of these terrorists groups.

Before reading “Distinguishing Tyrannicide”, I thought that there was a fine line between tyrannicide and terrorism, that was easily crossable; however, after reading the article, I believe that there is pretty definable line between the two. The emphasis on taking out the right person and only the right person and the person committing the act is acting in good faith. Despite the broad line between tyrannicide and terrorism, I still feel like the line can become fuzzy in some cases. So to be very sure of the benefits, those involved with tyrannicide should be very aware of the country they are attempting to save to be positive they will save them.